Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast

• Why Modern Adaptations Are Better Than Ever

  We started off this Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast episode by greeting everyone with excitement for July and reflecting on how summer used to be a time packed with massive blockbuster releases. We remember those days fondly, when movie theaters were our second homes during the hot months, and every Tuesday felt like a holiday because we could catch the latest release with cheap tickets.There was a nostalgic vibe as we recalled our favorite old, run-down theaters and how those experiences shaped our love of cinema. We laughed about how everyone’s collective obsession with Jonathan Bailey and his iconic glasses proves some things never change.We also acknowledged that the movie industry slowed down during the pandemic, but now it feels like we’re back to seeing huge summer releases again, reigniting that buzz we missed. This shift inspired us to look at how adaptations of books to film and TV have evolved over the years, especially with the rise of streaming services and changes in how we consume stories.The Evolution Of Adaptations: Then vs. NowThe hosts pointed out a striking difference between adaptations from the ‘90s and early 2000s compared to what we see today.Back then, it was all about flashy blockbusters: big budgets, famous stars, and marketing campaigns that cared more about spectacle than staying true to the book. We shared examples like The Godfather and James Bond films, where audiences often didn’t even realize they were adaptations of books.Even classics like Jaws, Psycho, and The Princess Bride fit this pattern; movies overshadowed their literary origins, and the books themselves rarely got a spotlight.We agreed that while there’s still some of that today, there’s a clear shift.Audiences are savvier, and studios now emphasize the source material more. Actors talk openly about reading the books to prepare for their roles, which feels like a refreshing change compared to the past when many proudly skipped the novel altogether. We explored how adaptations before 2016 felt more like cash grabs, focusing on box office appeal, but since then, there's been a noticeable effort to respect the author’s vision.Book Chat: What’s On Our Nightstands?In the middle of the conversation, we took a delightful detour to share what we’ve been reading. Shirin told us about Death in the Downline, a hilarious dark comedy-meets-murder-mystery involving an MLM scheme.She loved how Maria Abrams nailed the dark humor of direct sales culture, people using tragic events to shill products, which is both absurd and eerily true to life. We couldn’t stop laughing at examples of characters offering discounts in honor of the dearly departed.Meanwhile, Meaghan shared her excitement for Girl Next Door, an upcoming debut rom-com with LGBTQ+ themes that touches on complex relationships, high school crushes, and small-town drama. She appreciated how the book balanced lighthearted moments with serious topics, promising readers both depth and laughs. Meaghan promised to post a full review when she finishes, noting its September release.The Rise of Series Adaptations And Author InvolvementWe dove deep into why series adaptations have become the gold standard for book-to-screen translations. We argued that movies simply don’t have enough time to do justice to complex plots, inner monologues, and rich world-building.For books with multiple installments or intricate character arcs, a TV series allows creators to flesh out the story over several episodes, or even seasons, giving characters and themes room to breathe.One of the biggest changes we observed is the increasing involvement of authors in adaptations. Unlike decades past, where authors often sold rights and lost control, now many are listed as executive producers or consultants.We pointed to examples like Diana Gabaldon with Outlander, Hugh Howey with Silo, and Robin Carr with Sullivan’s Crossing. Having authors directly involved often leads to more faithful adaptations and happier fans. We celebrated how this trend gives authors a say in how their stories are interpreted on screen, and we hope it continues.Hits, Misses, And The Future Of AdaptationsNo conversation about adaptations would be complete without a rant about the bad ones, and we had plenty to say! We revisited flops like the Percy Jackson movies, which aged up characters unnecessarily and lost the heart of the books.We also slammed The Golden Compass movie, which butchered Philip Pullman’s incredible series with sloppy storytelling. Shirin even shared how the bad movie adaptation soured her on the later TV version, despite positive reviews.On the flip side, we applauded successful adaptations like Gone Girl, where a high-profile director, a star-studded cast, and respect for the source material made for a gripping film. We also praised Shadow and Bone for creatively merging two series with the help of author Leigh Bardugo, which showed how collaboration can turn a complicated universe into a compelling show.We observed how the rise of streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple TV fueled the adaptation boom. With their constant need for new content and big budgets, they tapped into existing books with built-in audiences, ensuring at least some initial interest.We discussed how the social media era amplifies feedback: fans celebrate faithful adaptations but also quickly and loudly condemn bad ones. Studios now have to tread carefully, knowing poor execution will spark viral backlash.We wrapped up by acknowledging that while not every adaptation will please everyone, we’re encouraged by the overall trend toward honoring books and giving authors creative input. We feel hopeful about the future, imagining a world where even more stories we love find their way to the screen in ways that stay true to what made them special in the first place.Final Thoughts And What’s NextWe closed the episode by teasing upcoming discussions on newer adaptations we’re excited about, and some we might dread.We plan to spend the month of July exploring different examples, unpacking what works, what doesn’t, and what we’d like to see going forward. We agreed that adaptations don’t need to be word-for-word recreations, but we want to see creators who care about the original work and respect what made it resonate with readers in the first place.Ultimately, we’re thrilled to see authors getting credit, adaptations getting smarter, and audiences more engaged than ever. We can’t wait to continue the conversation and hear what you, our fellow book lovers, think about this evolution. Let’s keep hoping for adaptations that make us feel the same magic we did the first time we turned those pages.

  --------  

  33:22

  --------

  33:22
• Why The Da Vinci Code Movie Bombed: Our Hilarious Rewatch And Hot Takes

  We kick off with the hosts’ cheerful greeting and their confession that they recorded the Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast ahead of schedule, joking that it is “the last week of June… but not really.” They remind us that June on Fully-Booked has been all about banned books, and they want to finish with something big.While scanning international censorship lists, Meaghan notices that The Da Vinci Code has been pulled from shelves in Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines. The reason is simple enough: some Christian leaders find the novel’s ideas offensive.Shirin admits she did not realize Lebanon has such a large Christian population, and the pair laugh at their own ignorance before pivoting to the film version they are about to rewatch. They also poke fun at their ongoing knack for picking “the worst movie adaptation possible,” a running joke that keeps listeners feeling part of an inside circle.Revisiting The Da Vinci Code: Book Hype, Film Fever, and Worldwide UproarWe move from playful chit-chat to the cultural moment of 2003, when Dan Brown’s novel exploded onto every bookstore display.The hosts recall how the familiar red hardcover stamped with a sliver of the Mona Lisa seemed to stare you down in every airport. Within two years, the book had sold tens of millions of copies, appeared in forty-plus languages, and sparked feverish speculation about secret societies, coded messages, and a hidden bloodline of Christ.And Hollywood pounced. In 2006, Ron Howard delivered a glossy blockbuster starring Tom Hanks, Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen, and Paul Bettany. At the time, Shirin remembers thinking the movie was “the shit,” full of twists that felt like National Treasure with better haircuts.Yet outside a Boston theater on opening night, she saw live protests, something a Canadian teenager did not expect on a school trip. That mash-up of box-office buzz and genuine outrage fascinates the hosts; it proves a thriller can still hit raw nerves when it challenges sacred stories.National Treasure, Nicolas Cage, and Tangents We Can’t ResistBecause no Fully-Booked episode is complete without at least one joyful detour, we zoom off to Shirin’s devotion to National Treasure.She owns a T-shirt with Nicolas Cage’s face, and the declaration “I’m gonna steal the Declaration,” makes her husband watch the film annually and defend its goofy charm at every opportunity.Meaghan, who once watched the movie constantly with her mother, agrees it is “terrible but fun.” Comparing ratings, they discover that Cage’s romp actually edges out The Da Vinci Code on Rotten Tomatoes, an outcome they find both hilarious and strangely satisfying.This lighthearted break matters. It shows how personal nostalgia shapes our judgment. Sometimes we cling to a so-so movie because it reminds us of family vacations or Friday sleepovers, not because it is a cinematic masterpiece. We feel that tug, too; I still grin whenever I hear Cage whisper “I’m going to steal it,” and I suspect many listeners have a similar guilty-pleasure favorite.Characters, Plot Holes, and Why the Film Falls FlatBack to business: the hosts dissect why the 2006 adaptation drags. First, length.At two-and-a-half hours, it spread over three separate viewing sessions in Meaghan’s living room. Second, plausibility.The victim supposedly staggers through the Louvre after being shot in the gut, leaving a breadcrumb trail of riddles in his own blood, yet still has the mental clarity to craft a sophisticated code. We agree with the hosts that this stretches believability to comic levels; our stomach hurts just imagining the crawl, never mind the cryptography. Third, character depth.In the book, Sophie Neveu is a brilliant police cryptographer; on screen, she turns doe-eyed, waiting for Robert Langdon to solve everything. Tom Hanks, lovable as ever, cannot overcome a script that reduces side characters to exposition machines.It feels as if a longer, richer draft was chopped down by anxious studio editors trying to hit a release date. The result is a movie that teaches the audience how to Google but forgets to give its heroine agency. We nod along when the hosts groan, “This person who’s this intelligent would not act like that.”Final Thoughts: Rating Rants, Unfinished Franchises, and What Comes NextWrapping up, the hosts admit they wanted to love the film. They felt a pang of nostalgia, hitting play, wishing the old rush of “twist on every page” would return.Instead, they found themselves pausing for snacks, baby duties, and the occasional disbelief-fuelled rant. Rotten Tomatoes sits at a meager 25 percent critic score, and once the hosts read that aloud, they cannot unsee the flaws.Meanwhile, Angels and Demons and Inferno limp on with the same creative team but never reclaim the lightning in a bottle. Even a short-lived TV spin-off, The Lost Symbol, failed to survive past one season.The conversation closes with laughter, apologies to any die-hard fans, and a promise that Meaghan will choose next month’s adaptations more carefully. The bigger takeaway is relatable: we all remember a book or movie that blew our adolescent minds, only to find it wobbly on rewatch.The hosts show us it’s okay to change our minds, poke fun at past tastes, and still respect the cultural storm a story once created. As we finish, we feel like we sat on the couch with two friends who love books, love movies, and love cracking jokes about both, exactly the kind of company we crave when the credits roll.

  --------  

  34:21

  --------

  34:21
• Why These 10 Books Were The Most Banned And Why That Should Worry You

  We started the Fully-Booked Podcast episode with some personal updates and our latest reads. Meaghan had just finished The Housemaid by Freida McFadden, a fast-paced thriller that she found both fun and perplexing in terms of what to expect from its sequels. She mentioned how Shirin tends to dive into one author's entire catalogue when she discovers a book she enjoys, and this time it was her turn to follow suit.Shirin, on the other hand, had just wrapped up Sunrise on the Reaping, the most recent Hunger Games novel. Neither of us is a die-hard fan of the series, but we both appreciated certain elements, especially when previous entries focused on characters like President Snow.Shirin noted that while the book was fine, it felt repetitive, echoing Katniss’ journey in the original trilogy. She admitted she might not have read it had the movie already been out, highlighting how closely these books and films tend to mirror each other.The ALA’s 2024 Challenged Book DataThe main focus of this episode was the alarming increase in book censorship across North America, especially in the United States. Shirin had been diving into data from the American Library Association (ALA), and the numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, there were 4,190 book titles challenged, mostly pushed by pressure groups and influenced decision-makers, not just concerned parents. For context, from 2001 to 2020, an average of only 46 titles were challenged each year.What really stood out was how the nature of these censorship efforts had shifted. Back in the early 2000s, only 6% of challenges came from organized groups. In 2024, that number skyrocketed to 72%. Most of the targeted books contained LGBTQ+ themes, racial identity, social justice, or stories of personal trauma and coming-of-age.This prompted us to ask: Why are people so threatened by lived experience, empathy, and diversity in storytelling? It seems that instead of aiming to protect children, these groups are trying to erase stories that reflect the reality of many people's lives.Exploring The Top 10 Most Challenged BooksWe broke down the top 10 most challenged books of 2024, and unsurprisingly, they shared common themes; queer identity, racial struggle, gender exploration, addiction, and trauma.Books like All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe were high on the list, both memoirs focused on LGBTQ+ identity. We also saw classic literary staples still getting flak, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison being one of them, which surprised us because it's been around since 1970. Apparently, we’re still not ready to have honest conversations about race.Titles like Looking for Alaska, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl were also included, all of which cover complex teenage emotions and situations: suicide, sexuality, and death. Other books like Crank and Sold dealt with heavy, real-world issues like drug addiction and human trafficking.We asked each other: What exactly are people afraid of here? Why is it seen as dangerous to talk about these subjects when they’re happening in real life? It feels absurd to ban a story about a teen struggling with meth because it might "influence" readers, when in fact these stories can educate and offer emotional insight. The irony is almost unbearable.The Situation in CanadaWhile the U.S. tends to get most of the attention in these discussions, we didn’t let Canada off the hook. Meaghan brought up that even here, we’re seeing a troubling rise in book challenges. In 2024, 119 titles were challenged, with another 30 already flagged in early 2025. The primary reasons echoed those in the U.S., objections to LGBTQ+ themes, “explicit” content, and gender diversity.The data came from the Canadian Library Challenges Database, which is backed by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Centre for Free Expression. A lot of the concerns were about age appropriateness, but even that excuse feels like a smokescreen for discomfort with difference.However, there was a silver lining. BookNet Canada reported that LGBTQ+ fiction sales actually rose by 34% in the last quarter of 2024. Clearly, when you try to silence something, it can make people even more curious. People want stories that represent who they are, and thankfully, we’re in a time where those books are being written, published, and read.The Power of Storytelling and RepresentationThis episode ultimately came down to a shared belief in the importance of storytelling and the power of representation. We reflected on how bookstores and libraries are fighting back. Displays of banned books are becoming more common, and institutions like Barnes & Noble and public libraries are leaning into the controversy by highlighting these works.Nearly half of public libraries now offer banned book displays, up 15% since 2020. Publishers also continue to support these stories, showing there’s still a demand, and that matters. If publishers stopped backing these authors, then we’d really be in trouble.We ended by reaffirming that censorship doesn’t protect, it stifles. If someone finds a topic uncomfortable, they can choose not to read it. That’s their right. But trying to take that right away from others? That’s not okay.In the end, we were fired up, but hopeful. Because for every book banned, there’s a reader who finds it and feels seen. That’s the kind of power stories have, and that’s worth protecting.

  --------  

  23:02

  --------

  23:02
• Why Was Water for Elephants Banned? We Still Don’t Get It

  We kicked off this Fully-Booked Podcast episode by sticking with our June theme: banned books. And this time, we focused on one that left us scratching our heads: Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen.The 2006 novel was recently banned in Utah’s public schools under House Bill 29, which allows parents to challenge books they consider “sensitive material.” If three school districts or charter schools agree, the book can be pulled statewide. That’s how Water for Elephants landed on the list, although, to be honest, we still don’t quite get why.We couldn't find a solid answer despite digging around. It’s not overtly graphic, political, or controversial in any standout way, so its ban feels baffling. That confusion is what actually sparked our whole Banned Books Month in the first place. We figured, if this book can be banned, what else is on these lists?Water for Elephants StoryThe book was adapted into a movie in 2011, starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz. It was set during the Great Depression and follows Jacob Jankowski, a Polish-American veterinary student at Cornell. Just as he’s about to graduate, tragedy strikes: both his parents die in a car accident. Jacob loses his home, his inheritance, and any hope of finishing his studies.With nowhere to go, Jacob hops on a passing train, which turns out to belong to a struggling traveling circus, the Benzini Brothers. From there, the story unfolds into a tale of hardship, romance, and survival under the big top. He meets Marlena, the circus’s star performer, who’s married to the charismatic yet increasingly violent ringmaster, August.What makes the movie unique is the addition of Rosie, a 53-year-old elephant brought in as the circus's new attraction. Rosie doesn’t initially respond to commands, and August abuses her, thinking she’s unintelligent. But Jacob discovers Rosie understands Polish, his native language, and with that breakthrough, he forms a bond with her.Behind the Scenes and Onscreen ChemistryWatching the film together, we had mixed feelings. The production value was solid; the costumes, set design, and overall look captured the Depression era beautifully. The acting was generally good, but we both agreed that the chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon felt flat. It wasn’t bad, just kind of…there. You understood they were supposed to fall in love, but you didn’t feel it.We even joked that this wasn’t a steamy Notebook-level romance. There was one sex scene, and it happened while they were on the run for their lives, which felt oddly timed, to say the least. It didn’t ruin the film, but it did make us question why that specific element might've been enough to get the book banned.Cultural ContextOne part of the discussion that hit close to home was about migration and cultural mindsets during the Depression. Jacob's story of traveling cross-country for work reflects a very American attitude of chasing opportunity. We compared that with how, in Canada, people generally don’t move provinces nearly as much, partly because of climate and geography.The circus in Water for Elephants operates on razor-thin margins. It picks up and moves within a day or two, requiring hundreds of people to maintain operations. August’s cutthroat management style is framed as necessary for survival in such tough times, but it quickly becomes clear he’s also a violent narcissist who physically and emotionally abuses both Marlena and the animals.The final twist of the story involves Rosie killing August during a chaotic night that leads to the downfall of the Benzini Brothers Circus. Marlena and Jacob escape, start a new life with Rosie, join the Ringling Brothers, and eventually settle down in Albany. Jacob becomes a vet, and they raise a family with Rosie by their side for decades.The story is told in flashbacks by an elderly Jacob, now in a nursing home. He ends the story by joining a modern circus, wanting to return to a life that once gave him purpose.So, Why Was It Banned?We still don’t have an answer. Animal cruelty is depicted, sure, but as part of the plot, not glamorized. There’s a single implied steamy scene. Maybe it’s the adultery subplot? Maybe the violence? But plenty of books in school libraries touch on all of those. We’re left wondering if the ban is more about optics than content.Shirin suggested the book’s banning was probably triggered by vague complaints, "inappropriate content" or "sensitive material", without clear definitions. Meaghan pointed out that Utah’s law allows just three school districts to challenge and remove a book across the entire state. That’s a low bar for sweeping censorship.We both acknowledged that this doesn’t mean Water for Elephants is inaccessible to the general public in Utah. It's still available in libraries, bookstores, and of course, online. But within schools, it’s off the table, and that’s a concern.Wrapping Up With QuestionsWe closed the episode reflecting on how this experience made us rethink censorship and what gets flagged. If something like Water for Elephants can be banned, what else could be?We brought up A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) by Sarah J. Maas, which is a bit spicier but realistically would never be assigned in schools to begin with. We joked that if someone thinks ACOTAR is too much, they haven’t seen the rest of the iceberg in the romance genre.We also laughed about the trend of big-name actors headlining these types of adaptations in the early 2010s. You had Reese, Robert, and Christoph, big names with big budgets. Today, the format has shifted. Book-to-film adaptations often hit streaming first, and casting doesn’t always go for top-tier stars. It’s a shift that’s changed the dynamic of how we experience these stories.And finally, we turned the question back to you: why do you think Water for Elephants was banned? Because we’ve read the book, watched the movie, and talked about it for over an hour, and we’re still stumped...

  --------  

  35:01

  --------

  35:01
• Why Banning Books Never Works (And Makes Us Want to Read Them More)

  We kicked off this Fully-Booked podcast episode like we often do, talking about the weather. June arrived, and with it came all the seasonal chaos we Canadians know too well. One moment we’re soaking in rays, and the next, we’re back to complaining about rain or trying to survive sudden temperature spikes. It’s the kind of weather where someone might wear a parka with flip-flops and somehow not look out of place.We laughed about how 10 degrees feels completely different in spring versus fall. In spring, we’re peeling off layers like it’s beach season, but in the fall, the same temperature has us reaching for cozy sweaters. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s Canada for you.Banned Books And Why They Still MatterThe main theme this month? Banned books. We decided it was time to shift from the more playful, game-style episodes and dig into something that matters on a cultural and intellectual level. This decision came after a quick text exchange about a new banned books article. Once we got into the topic, it opened up a floodgate of questions, ideas, and frustrations.We started by asking a simple but loaded question: What is a banned book?Technically, it's any book that’s been restricted or removed from access in certain schools, libraries, or communities. But what is it really? Censorship. And often, it’s censorship rooted in fear of ideas, of diversity, of history.From classics like 1984 and To Kill a Mockingbird to more recent works like All Boys Aren’t Blue and The Hate U Give, the reasons books get banned often come down to who’s uncomfortable with their message.It’s honestly baffling. When you look at a list of banned books, you start to notice patterns. So many of these works are centered on themes like rebellion, personal freedom, or confronting injustice, especially from governments or powerful institutions.Others touch on race, gender, sexuality, or trauma. In other words, they deal with real life. Books like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Diary of Anne Frank, Animal Farm, and Slaughterhouse-Five come up again and again. And that should make all of us pause. Why are these stories, the ones that challenge systems or amplify marginalized voices, the ones most often targeted?The Larger Conversation: Why Banning Books Is FutileWe dug deeper into the implications of banning literature. We talked about books being banned for obscenity in the past, like Lady Chatterley's Lover or Lolita, and more recent bans centered on issues like race, gender identity, or historical events.What struck us most was how many of these bans seemed designed to suppress not just stories, but the lived experiences of real people. Books like The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings are being challenged because they don’t fit a specific moral or political agenda.We also brought up examples from Canadian history, like the banning of Lethal Marriage, a book about the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka case, which was allegedly pulled for its inaccuracies. That led to a nuanced discussion about the difference between censoring historical artifacts and correcting misinformation. We’re not saying every book should be protected no matter what; it’s more about the intent and impact behind the banning.One of the more compelling questions we asked was this: If these books are so “dangerous,” why are they still so widely read? Because banning something often makes it more intriguing. You tell a teenager they’re not allowed to read The Catcher in the Rye, and that book jumps to the top of their list. The same goes for Fahrenheit 451, a book literally about burning books. There’s an irony in banning it that’s almost too obvious to be real.And with digital access being what it is, how do you realistically ban a book anymore? Even if you pull it from a shelf, people can download it in seconds. Instead of trying to restrict access, wouldn’t it make more sense to use these books as tools for education and discussion?Why This Matters More Than EverWe finished the episode by circling back to the bigger picture. If stories help build empathy, and we believe they do, then banning them does the opposite. It fosters ignorance. It promotes exclusion. It tries to erase perspectives that don’t align with the dominant narrative. And that’s dangerous.We talked about the current political climate and how certain groups, especially in the U.S., are trying to control what young people read. And while we can joke about things like Walter the Farting Dog being banned (seriously, why?), the truth is a lot of these censorship efforts come from a place of fear and control. We were honest about it, some of these bans are not just misguided, they’re harmful.Ultimately, we don’t think banning books prevents anything. In fact, it probably does the opposite. When we were younger and found out there were books people didn’t want us to read, we hunted them down. We read them with even more interest. That curiosity doesn’t go away, and the more you try to shut it down, the more persistent it becomes.So yeah, we’re kicking off the month talking about banned books. And we’re going to keep going. In the next few episodes, we’ll dig into some of these titles more closely and talk about what makes them so important and why people keep trying to silence them. We’re also hoping to bring in a few more voices to the conversation. Maybe even Sirin's mom (who’s already deep in The Housemaid) because we know she’ll have thoughts.And yes, we know this episode went off the rails at points, especially when we somehow got from banned books to porn. But hey, this is us. This is how we think, how we process, and how we connect with each other. And if there’s one thing we’re sure of, it’s that stories matter. They always have, and they always will.

  --------  

  37:26

  --------

  37:26

Więcej Sztuka podcastów

Trendy w podcaście Sztuka

O Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast